Back

Representational drawing ability is associated with the syntactic language comprehension phenotype in autistic individuals

Vyshedskiy, A.; Venkatesh, R.; Khokhlovich, E.

2024-07-30 pediatrics
10.1101/2024.07.26.24310995 medRxiv
Show abstract

The relationship between symbolic thinking and language abilities is a topic of intense debate. We have recently discovered three distinct phenotypes of language comprehension, which we defined as command, modifier and syntactic phenotypes (Vyshedskiy et al., 2024). Individuals in the command phenotype were limited to comprehension of simple commands, while those in the modifier phenotype showed additional comprehension of color, size, and number modifiers. Finally, individuals in the most-advanced syntactic phenotype added comprehension of spatial prepositions, verb tenses, flexible syntax, possessive pronouns, complex explanations, and fairytales. In this report we analyzed how these three language phenotypes differed in their symbolic thinking as exhibited through their drawing abilities. In a cohort of 39,654 autistic individuals 4- to 21-years-of-age, parents reported that drawing, coloring and art was manifested by 36.0% of participants. Among these individuals, representational drawing was manifested by 54.1% of individuals with syntactic-, 27.7% of those with modifier-, and 10.1% of those with command-phenotype (all pairwise differences between the phenotypes were statistically significant, p < 0.0001). The ability to draw a novel image per parents description (e.g. a three-headed horse) was reported by 34.6% of individuals with syntactic-, 7.9% of those with modifier-, and 1.9% of individuals with command-phenotype (all pairwise differences between the phenotypes were statistically significant, p < 0.0001). These results show strong association between the representational drawing ability and the syntactic-language-comprehension-phenotype, suggesting a potential benefit of drawing interventions in language therapy.

Matching journals

The top 4 journals account for 50% of the predicted probability mass.

1
Journal of Autism and Developmental Disorders
12 papers in training set
Top 0.1%
18.2%
2
NeuroImage: Clinical
132 papers in training set
Top 0.2%
14.6%
3
Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry
25 papers in training set
Top 0.1%
10.0%
4
European Journal of Neuroscience
168 papers in training set
Top 0.1%
8.4%
50% of probability mass above
5
Autism Research
32 papers in training set
Top 0.1%
6.8%
6
Neuroscience & Biobehavioral Reviews
43 papers in training set
Top 0.1%
4.3%
7
Journal of Neurodevelopmental Disorders
15 papers in training set
Top 0.1%
3.6%
8
Scientific Reports
3102 papers in training set
Top 37%
3.6%
9
Ear & Hearing
15 papers in training set
Top 0.1%
1.9%
10
Psychological Medicine
74 papers in training set
Top 0.9%
1.8%
11
Frontiers in Neuroscience
223 papers in training set
Top 3%
1.8%
12
Developmental Science
15 papers in training set
Top 0.1%
1.7%
13
Journal of Speech, Language, and Hearing Research
10 papers in training set
Top 0.1%
1.7%
14
Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences
2130 papers in training set
Top 36%
1.3%
15
npj Genomic Medicine
33 papers in training set
Top 0.6%
0.9%
16
PLOS ONE
4510 papers in training set
Top 63%
0.9%
17
Social Science & Medicine
15 papers in training set
Top 0.8%
0.9%
18
American Journal of Medical Genetics Part A
17 papers in training set
Top 0.3%
0.7%
19
Progress in Neuro-Psychopharmacology and Biological Psychiatry
36 papers in training set
Top 1%
0.7%
20
Neuroimage: Reports
22 papers in training set
Top 0.1%
0.7%
21
Neuropsychologia
77 papers in training set
Top 1%
0.7%
22
Brain Sciences
52 papers in training set
Top 2%
0.7%
23
The Journal of Pediatrics
15 papers in training set
Top 0.7%
0.7%
24
Developmental Cognitive Neuroscience
81 papers in training set
Top 0.7%
0.6%
25
JAMA Pediatrics
10 papers in training set
Top 0.2%
0.6%